aircraft carriers?

[eisey~]

back in the days of civ 2 you could really pile on the units, even missiles. but on civ3 i believe you can only place 4(?) units on an aircraft carrier. it doesnt seem like its as potent as a unit as it once was. if they up'ed its capacity to say 8 units (perferably more), i think it would add a whole nother dynamic to the game. you would have to have an escort and protect it at all costs and all sorts of good stuff. what do you think?

[notyoueither]

You can edit it.

For myself, I find carrier groups to be fairly lethal. Especially when combined with surface units. Note, I said groups.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You can edit it.

For myself, I find carrier groups to be fairly lethal. Especially when combined with surface units. Note, I said groups.

Yes, you did say carrier groups.
Note, however, that in the real navy, a carrier group will usually have only one or two carriers.

As for me, I had a couple of carriers in the very first Civ 3 game I played, and their performance was such that I haven't bothered to build them since.

[Stuie]

I increased their transport capacity to 6. That way you can carry a couple fighters and four bombers - seems like a nice mix.

[Nick727]

I think making them able to hold 12 planes or other units would be about right but make em more exspensive.

[planetfall]

I agree with Stuie, load of 6 seems most balancing. 1..2 for fighters, and 4..5 for bombers. I tried with 10 for a while but both unbalanced as human had too much advantage and and not really needed. I have really down prioritized my use of aircraft bombers as AI always builds a ton of jets and interception rates of 1/3 make it not as cost effective as other options. It is actually more fun to have smaller targeted missions and multiple invasion points than just one big D Day type of invasion.

-- PF

[congobeast]

Another thought?

If you look at the number of combat groups aboard a carrier, it is actually fairly small. I think the problem lies not with the -number- of aircraft aboard a carrier, but in the -effectiveness- of the aircraft.

I've long thought that the C3 and PTW aircraft are grossly underpowered.

To that end, I've doubled both types Bombard ability- roughly-; and given both of 'em Naval Kill. That way, like in the Pacific Theater of WWII, they can actually sink ships.

[eisey~]

i agree with you, it does seem that planes don't have that knock out blow that they can have in real life. maybe the fault does lie in the effectiveness of the aircraft. i do however still think that capacity of 6 or 8 would definately be a lot better and as you've said "balanced".

[joncnunn]

The usefulness of Carriers depends upon the map:

In Pangena, they probably aren't useful at all if you start on the main land mass.

In Archepello, they are quite important, and given how long it takes to move them, you should start building them at or shortly after Battleships so that they are in proper position when your bombers start getting built.

Under contientantial, sometimes Carriers are useful, and sometimes they aren't. It's depedant upon the distance between those contientants.

If your playing America, 4 F-15s should be placed on each carrier. Otherwise, 3 Bombers & 1 Jet Fighter. 3 Carriers together with 4 Battleships is a nice group. (Optional: 2 Nuclear Subs or 1 AEGIS in the general area to spot enemy subs.)

[planetfall]

The Bomber vs Jet equation is hard to balance.

Default in the game has bombard too weak. If up bombard values of bombers to reasonable levels, i.e. 1/3 result in hits, then the AI really, really uses bombers. When you adjust by fixing intercept rate to about 40%, then it seems like bombers never get thru. The problem is Civ3 and also PTW don't allow for fighter air support on bombing runs. It is dumb that a WWII B17 will knock out a jet. They couldn't handle the primitive ME262's. A modern jet would take out 99% of incoming B17's. {Firaxis if "bomber" is newer than B-17, give us a new graphic to match}.

Additional problems you have if you add extra capacity on carriers:

1. harder to split up multiple strike forces with carrier base.
2. AI doesn't build very many of them and you get too much of an advantage

Bigger problem with carriers is:
1. can't base paratroopers
2. can't transport heliocopters

Remember both Air and Navy are afterthoughts for Civ3/PTW and not integrated like land forces. Maybe this will be fixed if there is a Civ4, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

At least now we can preference lethal bombardment.

-- PF

[FNBrown]

The inability to transport helicopters is a real shortcoming.

I usually boost my carrier capacity to 8. Four is definately too small for what I typically envision them as.

[Dida]

very true. 4 is way too small, given how inefficient the bombers are.

[Argos65987]

Has anyone tried to edit helicopters so that they are able to load onto aircraft carriers?

[Raion]

I just looked at it in the Editor, and I think that one would have to check the 'load' box, and that is all for the helicopters, about middle right side of screen of Units tab of the Edit Rules of the civ3.bix file, plus anything else like bombard at the bottom of that screen for units or different type of air missions, if wanted.

[Argos65987]

I figured the "load" flag, but I can't recall if there may be other boxes to flag (going from memory since I am at work and don't have the editor in front of me), such as "air unit", also, is there a box that says "re-base"?

It would help make carriers a great strike force if you could edit the carriers to load helicopters, then load up the helicopters and start attacking. Would be a great way to strike at enemy resource squares and radars.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Raion
I just looked at it in the Editor, and I think that one would have to check the 'load' box, and that is all for the helicopters, about middle right side of screen of Units tab of the Edit Rules of the civ3.bix file, plus anything else like bombard at the bottom of that screen for units or different type of air missions, if wanted.

Has anyone tested this in-game?

[joncnunn]

I think that if you double the Carriers fighter capacity, that you ought to double the cost of building it. Otherwise you'll have an unfair advantage over the AI.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by joncnunn
I think that if you double the Carriers fighter capacity, that you ought to double the cost of building it. Otherwise you'll have an unfair advantage over the AI.

Why? The AI can enjoy the benefits of the added capacity as well.

However, I suppose the fact that the AI rarely exploits the power of the aircraft carrier makes it a potentially unbalancing mod.

[benjdm]

The problem is Civ3 and also PTW don't allow for fighter air support on bombing runs.

Actually, this isn't quite true. If you send in fighters on bombing runs and the defending fighter intercepts they will fight each other; the equivalent of fighter sweeps.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by benjdm
Actually, this isn't quite true. If you send in fighters on bombing runs and the defending fighter intercepts they will fight each other; the equivalent of fighter sweeps.

For this reason, I have increased fighter defense strengths to almost their attack strength, with the exception of the F-15 in which it is equal to its attack strength.

The rationale being that interceptors will be using their attack strength, and fighter vs. fighter combat advantage goes to those INDIVIDUAL fighters that see their opponent first.

[benjdm]

Jaybe, I do the same thing.

[Thoth]

Originally posted by Argos65987
Has anyone tried to edit helicopters so that they are able to load onto aircraft carriers?

I tried this a few months ago with vanilla Civ3. It appears that once you add cargo capacity to an air unit, you can no longer base that unit on a carrier.

[Raion]

No other boxes to check other than the 'load' checkbox.
Load and unload is for transport. Other than that, if one wants to have the heliocopters do something else, in the air catagory boxes, than that also would have to be checked.

But, I have not tried it yet!
Haven't looked any further yet into it.

[benjdm]

I usually boost my carrier capacity to 8. Four is definately too small for what I typically envision them as.

I think this is done to be more representative of a real aircraft carrier's support costs. The American ones have 5000 people on them ! So I think of a Civ 3 carrier as being one half to one third of a real Nimitz class carrier.

[Coracle]

HAS ANYONE SEEN. . .

AI aircraft carriers used with a full load of airplanes? I recall in Civ 2 the AI often did not do that. So I waswondering if thre AI has been improved in that regard.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Coracle
HAS ANYONE SEEN. . .

AI aircraft carriers used with a full load of airplanes? I recall in Civ 2 the AI often did not do that. So I waswondering if thre AI has been improved in that regard.

Definitely. In fact, when I see an AI carrier, it is usually fully loaded (and gets replenished if aircraft are lost).

Catt

[PrinceBimz]

I use aircraft carriers for so many different roles...protecting my fleet, fighting off enemy ships, supporting beach landings, airstriking cities...and this list just goes on... Especially if there are large oceans and sea areas involved in my map. I get more then my money worth from a carrier nearly everytime I build one. Alot of times I put a full load of either fighters or bombers and sometimes a mix. I have not edited them to carry more aircraft or anything, I just use the default capacity of 4. I imagine increasing it to 6 or 8 would be even more useful but I think the cost should go up then too.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by benjdm


Actually, this isn't quite true. If you send in fighters on bombing runs and the defending fighter intercepts they will fight each other; the equivalent of fighter sweeps.

No this is different. You are describing a fighter being used a light bomber.

There is no AS role for outgoing bomber missions. AS only protects from city center. Even if your city is only 4 tiles from enemy city and you have a fighter on AS, that fighter will never engage the fighters attacking your bombers.

Sometimes using a fighter as a bomber will work and other times not. I have seen AI ignore fighter bombing runs and wait to intercept the real bombers.

== PF

[planetfall]

Originally posted by Catt


Definitely. In fact, when I see an AI carrier, it is usually fully loaded (and gets replenished if aircraft are lost).

Catt

Agreed. AI will also build several carriers. They are often defended by at least one other ship. Rather than stack as series of ships and carriers, the AI will spread them out so they cover more area. With the longer range of the stealth bombers sometimes it is takes time to figure out where the AI bombing attacks are coming from.

== PF

[planetfall]

Originally posted by PrinceBimz
I use aircraft carriers for so many different roles...protecting my fleet, fighting off enemy ships, supporting beach landings, airstriking cities...and this list just goes on... Especially if there are large oceans and sea areas involved in my map. I get more then my money worth from a carrier nearly everytime I build one. Alot of times I put a full load of either fighters or bombers and sometimes a mix. I have not edited them to carry more aircraft or anything, I just use the default capacity of 4. I imagine increasing it to 6 or 8 would be even more useful but I think the cost should go up then too.

Not a big deal. 4 would work fine. 4..5..6, all seem to be used fine by AI. If you increae beyond that, then the AI is crippled a bit as it prefers to disperse it's carriers rather than concentrate units like humans. {it can move dispersed units faster than human can move stacked units.}


The only real reason I increase mine to 6 is for convenience. 5 bombers + 1 jet. Thus each carrier has a load of X x 5 bombers. 1 carrier=5, 2=10, 3=15, etc. I don't count the jets, but count the bombers in figuring out how much air bombardment I need. Once I figure out the number of bombers, I work backwards and build that many carriers. It is just easier to multiply 5 x # of carriers than 3 X # of carriers. Well maybe not easier, but simplier to work off base 5 {1/2 of base 10} than to work off base 3 {1/3 of base 10}.

== PF